Tapping into Mammon: stakeholder perspectives on developing church tourism in Dublin's Liberties

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore attitudes among church administrators to church tourism, and the vexing challenge of categorizing church properties as tourist attractions for the city visitor. Furthermore, it seeks to ascertain if in the current economic climate, evidence of a collaborative inclination exists between core and peripheral supply‐stakeholders towards delivering a church tourism trail in this visitor‐rich area of Dublin city. Design/methodology/approach Data were gathered to coincide with the busiest period of the tourist season. Using a qualitative methodology involving a series of semi‐structured interviews, initial research concentrated on attitudes to church tourism among both church administrators and church visitors. Subsequent interviews with key informants from both core and peripheral stakeholder groups focused on their attitudes to stakeholder collaboration in the development of a localized church tourism trail. Findings The findings of this paper would suggest broad support among most church administrators towards tourism and contextualising church properties as heritage attractions. However, operational dissonances associated with “church ethos” and “collaborative engagement”, particularly when embedded within individual fears of being associated with an official “tourist trail” were viewed as collaborative impediments among some traditional and peripheral stakeholders. Originality/value As international competition for the urban tourist intensifies, this paper, in adopting a supply‐sided perspective has, through counterpointing psychological barriers to the development of a church tourism product, with the absence of collaboration champions in the area, highlighted a number of limiting factors to adding value to the visitor experience in Dublin's Liberties. Challenges abide!

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.